TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 62
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the issue and facts in Govind Sugar Mills case are almost identical to the issues and facts of the present case? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is liable to pay tax on the purchase of sugarcane under the provisions of Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, when the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase & Supply) Act, 1953 is in force which is a special Act?" 3. The Assessing Officer-Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner and Value Added Tax Tribunal rightly held that the appellant is liable to pay tax on the purchase of sugarcane under the provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short 'PGST Act') in view of the judgment of a bench of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court in M/s Jagatjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Punjab and another 1995(1) SCC 67, which was a judgment on the very provisions which fall for consideration before us. 4. Mr. Sandeep Goel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, however, contends that the authorities ought not to have followed and that we ought not to follow this judgment, although it would normally be binding on us as the Supreme Court failed to consider an ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rce or in the course of export out of the territory of India, or iii. uses such goods for a purpose other than that of resale within the Union Territory, or sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of the territory of India, or iv. sends them out side the Union Territory other than by the way of sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of the territory of India, and no tax is payable on the purchase of such goods under any other provision of this Act, there shall be levied a tax on the purchase of such goods at such rate not exceeding the rate specified under sub-section (1) of section 5 as the Central Government may direct". The question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner therein was liable to pay purchase tax on the sugarcane purchased by it from the growers of the sugarcane. This is the very question before us as well. Paragraphs 14, 22 and 23 of the judgment read as under:- "14. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is this: Section 4-B, which levies purchase tax, expressly excludes the goods mentioned in Schedule B from its purview. In other words....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d situations. It, of course, does not deal with the goods specified in Schedule B. Its object is to ensure inter alia that purchase of raw material is not taxed where the sale of manufactured goods brings in tax to the State or serves the national interest, as explained hereinbefore. If, however, manufactured goods are so disposed of as not to bring in tax to the State nor so as to serve national interest aforementioned, then the purchase of goods (broadly referred to as raw material in this judgment), the State retains and collects the purchase tax on raw material. Similarly, where the very goods are sold in such a manner as to bring in revenue to State by way of tax on their sale, (i.e., sale within the State, inter-State sale or export sale, as the case may be) then again the purchase of such goods is exempt from tax as explained and elaborated hereinabove. 23. If so, the question arises which is the provision which levies the purchase tax? The answer is - Section 4(1) itself. Section 4(1) not only levies tax on all sales but also levies tax on all purchases as well. Of course, in no case will both the sale point and purchase point of the same transaction be taxed, which feat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance Act. Analyzing the provisions of the Finance Act, the Supreme Court observed that it provides for levy of different types of commercial taxes which are generally leviable in the State of Bihar and that the object of the Sugarcane Act was to regulate the production, supply and distribution of sugarcane intended for use in sugar factories and for taxation of sugarcane and matters incidental thereto. Mr. Goel, relied upon paragraph 11 of the judgment which reads as under:- "11. The next contention on behalf of the State, as noted above, is that the two enactments operate in different fields inasmuch as while the Finance Act is an enactment for the purpose of generating revenue for the State, the Sugarcane Act is enacted generally for the purpose of production, supply and distribution of sugar. The power of taxation contemplated under this Act is only incidental to further the object of Section 49(8) of the Sugarcane Act. In other words, an attempt was made to contend that the tax which was levied and collected under Section 49 of the Sugarcane Act was to be appropriated towards the requirements of the Board and the Council constituted under the Sugarcane Act. In this connectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in mind we are not entitled to take a different view based on Mr. Goel's additional submission founded on the provisions of the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Act, 1953. In Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 420, the Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot question the correctness of the decision of the Supreme Court even though the point raised before the High Court was not considered by the Supreme Court. In Director of Settlements A.P. and others v. M.R.Apparao and another (2002)4 Supreme Court Cases 638, the Supreme Court held that the decision in a judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be assailed on the ground that certain aspects were not considered by, or that relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court. It was further observed that once the Supreme Court decides the principle it would be the duty of the High Court to follow the decision. 10. We, therefore, cannot take a view different from the one taken by the Supreme Court in M/s Jagatjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Punjab (supra) on the ground that the Supreme Court did not consider the provisions of the Punjab Sugarcane (Regul....